a valid procedure to argue in favor of a theory
In this investigation is considered the measurement by means of a statistics correlation as a valid procedure to argue in favor of a theory in social sciences. The correlation the same as the measurement process in experiment let always a fallibility margin in its results. The scientific community can adopt that explanation whose results offer the smaller fallibility margin.
Allegory of the restless researcher
A restless researcher considers that any variable that it is interrelated statistics with the variable violent acts constitutes an independent variable that it can determine the variable violence. This researcher observed in an experimental simulation process the following relationship; the individuals that they were not consuming alcohol were answering with less negative actions or violent actions that those that if accustom to consume it. This subject accomplished a yet more detailed measurement, collecting individual data by individual in a given group, and found that the variable alcohol and the variable actions of the individuals are related. The subject accomplished then a statistics correlation and observed that the variable alcohol this highly interrelated with the variable violence.
This subject was hurried to interpret that the variable alcohol is determinant of the actions of the individuals. The researcher considers that has in his hands a the one which finding can explain in good part the violent actions. The arguments of the observant are based solely on the correlation of the two variable observed in the experimental simulation process.
But the researcher, not being satisfied with the experimental simulation, was went to prove his supposed in a real experiment. His intention was to measure the relationship among variable alcohol and the variable actions of the individuals. The subject found that yet in the experiment, they were related or, better yet, they were interrelated the two variable.
The results of the observant, caused inicially something of consternation to the directing of the simulation as well as to the of the experiment. The first by be attentive and to lend to him always validity to this type of statistics measures and the second, not being used in its experiments.
But, the director of the simulation as well as the director of the experiment discussed with the restless researcher, arguing that though the variable alcohol presents relationship to the actions of the individuals, it should be let in clear the limits of this relationship or correlation. For example it is certain that, the alcohol comsume constitutes in itself a negative act that could take to the fact that a subject increase in his behavior the violent or negative actions. But also it is certain that individual that they do not consume alcohol can equally to abound in negative actions, of social degradation or of violence.
The director of the simulation as the director of the experiment mentioned furthermore, that the theory used by them in his practices, it can explain happened what is with the variable alcohol. The alcohol comsume is a consequence or a dependent variable that there can at the same time to help to unfetter other negative effects or violent actions. For so much the restless researcher is identifying in the variable alcohol comsumean effect most, the one which unfetters other sound effects, and consequently, the restless researcher confuses to the variable alcohol with an independent variable when actually it is a dependent variable.
The two directing indicated that it is possible for each one of them to control in his respective test field this type of confusions, through follow-up, with the history of the subjects, and with measurements of control.
In a future, in relationship to new variable or observations that they could put on among said or to throw doubts to previous findings, the directors suggest that these new observations in addition to be treated with a deserved respect, they should also be handled warily to verify if exists actually a theoretical sustenance that sustains them, and which is the credibility level of this. It should be furthermore to verify if to the light of the theory that sustains the simulation or the previous or previous experiments of the directors, it can be identified the real nature of the new observation or variable that disquiets the previously established results, and before the thus exposed dilemma, it should be to choose the theoretical explanation that offer a better comprehension of what is observed.
Correspond in last to the individual or investigating to choose the explanation that permits better understand its observations or results, better the one which it satisfy, in the one which believes. The level in which it will be accepted this explanation by the scientific community or the social group, constitutes the popularity level in which this type of explanation has acceptance in a society.
When it is being experiencing about the efficiency of an antidote to avoid the negative effects of a poison, the results can be known or verified without much difficulty. In other words, if the antidote is effective, in an immediate time can be observed its results. But if the antidote is not effective and the poison is fatal, it more probably is than the patient dies.
To control the experiment is relatively easy, in the measure that it can be measured without much difficulty the state of the subject experiemental, that is to say, it is easy to recognize if the patient is recovered or worsened.
In social sciences when is sought an antidote, for example, to reduce the violence, it can be accomplished in form akin to the procedure followed to prove an antidote of a poison, but the observation of the efficiency or results is not so easy, because the antidote to reduce the violence does not come in pills, syrups or injections, those which enter to his body in short time and assault at once the evil. An antidote for the violence corresponds to a variable that the subject must interiorise, it is a process in the one which the time is not accurate, therefore to control the results or the efficiency of an antidote for the violence is hindered.
For the foregoing, to make this checking is recomendable the experimental simulation procedure, the one which consists in building groups with subject without the antidote and groups with subject bearing of the antidote that is to say that already it may have interiorised (the presence of the antidote has been identified with statistics correlation), therefore is compared the violence level in both groups and is verified the efficiency of the subject bearing of the antidote to reduce the violence.
